Jump to content

delide

Members
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About delide

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. IMO it's mainly distortions in the photos of the builds, because they are photographed in close distance and the radome is at the edge of the lens, where things get stretched a bit. If we look at a sprue shot with proper distance and angle like this, it looks better, same as in the drawn profile in the instruction I think. Not perfect but OK, from the top to the tip it does looks slightly too "droppy". But that's only the side profile, it's a complex 3D shape, it's difficult to judge just from one angle.
  2. Yes, the difference's small, but the hobby is literaly about small things… It does show Hasegawa has done a great job 15 years ago, but I’m sure there will be small areas where Meng will look better.
  3. I should have said one of my many hobbies... And nah, no way I’m going to any one of them up :-) Anyway, the kit’s a surprise, I believe it will do well, hopefull Meng will then work on more unique subjects, or subjects that can be greatly improved, shapewise at least, Hasegawa’s is one of their best, if not the best.
  4. Yes. how dares he's not singing praise of the plastic already... Seriously, I really like Meng a lot, their kits are cutting edge in many areas, but just regarding shape accuracy, their are 2nd tier at best(except their scanned P-51D). Anyway, I will not hold back my observation of the limited pictures of the CAD, compared to Hasegawa and the real thing, Hasegawa still looks better to me here:
  5. Thanks for your explanation! Yes, I didn't get the fun part, I can't judge if its anger, frustration or what else behind other people's motivation, but Nino for example does have very interesting facts too, at least to me, like that the Su-33 has different canopy than Su-27, which I personally never knew and would never have learned about it otherwise. While he may not have first hand measurements, but he is certainly much much more resourceful than me, so I for one can not ignore the information he presents, the rest is not for me to judge, but I think sometimes it's understandable, and if th
  6. Not sure what you were trying to say and I mean no offence, but I'm truly surprised by the different reaction or maybe the double standard. After all you were very vocal about small issues on Airfix 's MiG-17 yourself, and about Eduard's MiG-21bis's nose, so much that it has been dubbed as Gabor's nose by Eduard, and now all is just for a laugh? So I didn't expect that, but it doesn't matter.
  7. Sigh, just for a few weeks I thought I finally knew the truth... But at least the difference between your and GWH measurement is not that big, while GWH's measurement matched Kinetic almost perfectly, your measurement is kind of in between the Kinetic and GWH's Su-35, especially the A is exactly in the middle, which is more important to the shape of the canopy itself than B. So if GWH Su-27 matches their own measurement well, it's going to be OK too, just as GWH's Su-35 is OK for you. the difference to your measurement would not be as noticeable as it was between Kinetic and GWH's Su-35.
  8. Nino, is that from Su-27 too, not Su-33?? You mentioned that you asked your friend to get on the top of Su-33. Otherwise really strange that the measurements just doesn't match.
  9. The criticism is mainly about other areas, it doesn't means everything on the kit is bad. Really the canopy looks very good to me, compared to photos of the real Su27/35, but as Nino mentioned, the canopy of the Su-33 is slightly different for better visibilty on carrier, the seat has been moved forward, so the canopy need be changed a bit I guess. In the end the canopy of the Kinetic is indeed wrong, but it looks good X-P
  10. Very good summary. To me the shape of the Kinetic Su-33 canopy looks better(compared to Su-27/35), aslo both the mold and the CAD for GWH's new Flankers look perfect to me. I fully believe it will match their measurment very well, as far as I'm concerned everything just look better/right. Shame that they could't use the measured data for the Su-35 as it seems, the difference at A and B of that kit is well noticable to me and beyond normal design/manufacturing tolerence or material issues.
  11. Yes, certainly much more than I would image! A pity we do not know much about it, hope it will reach the shelf soon! Done, then you need to delete the quote of mine post too.
  12. Again sorry about. On the other hand, at least judging by GWH's new data, their design of the single seater is going to match the Su-33 V1.0 pretty well, so you may still be able to use their Su-35 to correct it if you wish. But of course let's wait and see the kit first.
  13. Sorry about that, but I think you should be able to fix it up. I'm still not 100% sure, I tend to believe that the cross section on Su-33 would remain truly circular, so it must become wider as it becomes higher. However the difference is not that big, it's just puzzling, and how GWH now comes to their new data ...
×
×
  • Create New...